hmm I've just had an idea...what if...the GTA V is structured sort of like a Tarantino-esque story(or GTA IV+episodes in one) with three characters whose individual stories intertwine in the LS county area??

You know how rockstar does these things, about 3 trailers, and then you get the game.
So, that would mean the first trailer is about(other than introducing the setting/time/vibe/etc.) one of the characters, the older Italian looking guy, narrated by himself, with a glimpse of the other two characters as well(younger tattooed black guy and the younger white/latino guy).

It would make sense, for the variety sake, different backgrounds, experiences, social groups, contacts etc.
Also, the style of the gameplay would possibly be restricted, if you only played as an 50+ years old man, you couldn't really expect him to do all that GTA style mayhem adequately?

I'm basing this view on the rumors of multiple characters and that rockstar's quote:
Quote:
A bold new direction in open-world freedom, storytelling, mission-based gameplay and online multiplayer
In my view, five characters(suggested by some) would probably over complicate things and water down the characters themselves, hampering the immersion in each of their stories...3 is a good number, not to loose track of the story paths, me thinks.

However strange this sounds, but Die Hard is "just a movie" and although GTA can get pretty outrageous, I don't think rockstar would envision a 50+ years old man doing same shenanigans as Niko or CJ for example...I think they have some different line of badassery in mind for him, while the more physical stuff is left more to the others...

However strange this sounds, but Die Hard is "just a movie" and although GTA can get pretty outrageous, I don't think rockstar would envision a 50+ years old man doing same shenanigans as Niko or CJ for example...I think they have some different line of badassery in mind for him, while the more physical stuff is left more to the others...

Well, you know what I mean, under the speculation that there are multiple characters, it would be dumb to repeat similar missions, but just with different characters, I suppose they will have varied approaches to problem solving, if you know what I mean.

I'd like to start by saying that I really like the idea of multiple protagonists. If it is done right, it could really help all aspects of a GTA game feel fresh, inventive and approachable. What I mean is that each character would have to be varied enough in their surroundings and backstory.

Gameplay should be unique to the different characters. Let's go with a hypothetical situation and say that Tommy and CJ were both characters in this game (please don't let this actually be true, it would be awful). Tommy could buy property and control the city, while CJ could run the ghetto through turf-based combat. Each seperate story has to be diverse enough in what you can do to make you actually want to play as someone else. A character like Carl Johnson would never deal drugs, which meant that awesome drug selling mini-game in Chinatown Wars would never have made sense in San Andreas - so add a character to this game that it does work for.

GTA IV's main problem was that Niko's story got stale - fast. The only place that really made sense for him was Hove Beach, and those missions were only used as an introduction to gameplay mechanics and thus none of them were that good. This is opposed to the Lost and Damned and Ballad of Gay Tony, which both had 30 or so missions based in almost entirely different aspects of the criminal underworld - thus, different and more uniquely succinct stories developed. The simple reason these stories were better than IV's was because they were short and to the point.

What I would truly hate is for Rockstar to make each characters story interweave throughout the entire game. To pull a Heavy Rain and play as one character one mission and then cut to someone else would make for an absolutely horrible playing experience in this type of game. Each story has to play out separately and independent of the others, and I would argue that they should all be in different timelines. I don't necessarily mean they occur years or decades apart, but make one story begin as another one ends - this has to be done in order for the player to feel as if the game is progressing between each character.

Multiple-playable characters would have to be done with a careful dynamic - each character still has to be strong enough for the player to want to be them (No Jack Marstons allowed). I don't know how it would work at the end of the game, especially with cutting out elements of gameplay for each character. If you are stuck with only one character at the end it would be quite unfortunate to only be limited to that characters exclusive traits and abilities.

Tl;dr
Multiple characters would mean that all elements of gameplay from previous games would fit succinctly into this one game, in an epic fashion.

I really don't know how i feel about multiple protagonists, in LA Noire, i didn't being forced to just continue the story with a new character.

@victim, i'm not sure i like the one after the other idea, it may mean the character you liked is now gone, and you've been forced to move on and finish the game as a character you didn't like as much.

Perhaps, if you played through, got to say 3/4 of the way through, and there is a plot twist, but it is not all revealed, and we get a 2 MONTHS EARLIER, and we then play as another character, who ends then ends up, caught up in this same plot twist, which reveals a bit more of the plot, then we have another reversal of time, and we are a different character, and we get to this point again, and all is revealed, we now have to decide what to do, and how we will continue, who we will continue as, that way you choose who you will finish the story as.

And then after the story, mini missions (continuing on with drug trading, assassinations or whatever) and what not are tailored to that character, if you then play through again and choose someone else and see how the plot turns out that way, then you also get a few different mini missions (import/export lists, gang wars) etc...

It's an incentive to play through again, especially if you want to get 100%.

How would the story ever move forward if it is constantly going back in time? It worked well in IV because they were DLC, but we're talking about the exact same timeline playing over and over again. Why would you want to do all of these things as one character and then get thrust back to the beginning as someone else?

I'm not saying the stories shouldn't - all of them will be about chasing the dollar, as we already know - but do you not think it would be amazing if say the first character was to die at the end of his story, and then it cuts and you play as the man who killed him? There would be no point if it keeps going back in time, as the endings to each story would just be repetitive with no hint at the story developing beyond that point.

It's hard to get across what I am thinking. Imagine it more like LCS or VCS as opposed to TLAD or TBoGT - the stories still overlap and compliment each other without being played in the same timeline as the originals.

I don't want to get to know a character just to have him die, and then I especially don't want to play as the guy who just killed me, he's the enemy.

The way I see it is for example, you'd begin as a street thug kinda guy who is moving up in the ranks of his gang, he sets up a meet to buy some drugs from a mob, something goes wrong, there is a gunshot outside, the Mob boss has been shot, you see one of mob chasing the shooter, then the story jumps back to you playing as this mobster up until the same point where your boss gets shot and you give chase, but are unable to keep up, at which point we jump back to play as this guy, the shooter, who is a mercenary, a gun for hire, you play through his story, until the same point, and you find out who arranged for you to kill the mob boss, turns out it was someone trying to frame the first guy.

So now you have a choice, continue as the first guy who is trying to evade the mob as they think he is involved, while finding out who set you up, play as the mob guy who wants both these guys dead, or as the mercenary, who needs to flee the mob.

Obviously this is just something I came up with in 5 mins, it would be a much deeper, richer storyline, but it means you choose what happens, it isn't chosen for you.

It's not like redoing the same things, they are different people in different lines of crime.

Ugh, saying you don't want a main character to die is kind of the point. Main characters in television shows, books and films do actually die, quite often in fact. Why isn't it the same in video games? Here we have an entertainment platform that wants to be held to the same standards as that of film and the only thing holding it back is rich, detailed storylines that can have a real affect on the players emotions. Of course you don't want the lead to die, he's your guy and you like him.

Tarantino was brought up by the OP. Pulp Fiction has a great connection to what I'm talking about. I would argue that film has three main characters - Bruce Willis, John Travolta and Samuel L. Jackson, who play Butch, Vincent and Jules respectively - they all have their own stories throughout the film which interweave during separate timelines. If you haven't seen it stop reading now. Butch kills Vincent, which incites an emotional response from the audience but still doesn't make us care less about Butch's plight. Rockstar are known for constantly pushing the barriers between film and videogame, so I expect V to draw heavily on a Pulp Fiction influence if it does indeed go the multiple-characters path.

There's this growing trend in videogames where every playable character has to be extremely likeable. It's a trend that gets broken occasionally - look to L.A. Noire for the best example of this - and while some may argue you need a good leading man in order to have a good story, this is hardly the case. I want to feel the adrenaline of knowing a character could die at any moment, rather than being the invincible space-marine that so many other titles offer.

In order to have the richest and fullest story on offer, videogames have to break down barriers and be a little controversial in their approach to storytelling. The ending of RDR was one of the freshest experiences I have ever felt in a videogame ; it ended the way a film would end.

But that's cool; if you want to play the same thing over-and-over again, you can do that. I personally want to move onwards.

I appereciate that, but I don't think games can ever truly merge with films, tv shows and books, I don't watch a film the same way I play a game, when I watch a film, I'm watching a story, however that story goes, that's fine, because I'm just watching it, but when I'm playing a game, I feel like I become the character, I don't feel like I'm just playing an interactive story, so when the story forces something upon me, it feels less like I'm playing a game, and more like I'm just along for the ride, for example, in LA Noire when

cole begins cheating on his wife, and walks out on his kids

that annoyed me, because all I could think was, what a dick, I wouldn't do that, why would I want to do that!? It was good as a story, and a games story is an important aspect, I just don't think a deep, rich storyline, should take priority over the actual game.

In a film, if the main character dies, it's all part of the story, but in a game, I am the main character, i get that you'd want the adrenaline from whether or not he'll die, but if it's in the script, and no matter how well you play, you're gonna die, the playing of the game starts to seems pointless, if I die, the last however many hours it took to get there feels like rather a waste of time.

Would you not rather it be, 'play this mission to determine what happens next' than 'play this mission to unlock the next part of the film'?

I also didn't like heavy rain, I like to play games, and watch films, not play films or watch games.

I think it's difficult for both of us to properly explain our thoughts on this.

Perhaps rockstar will find a comfortable middle ground that will satisfy both of us, we are all different people, but rockstar have always been good at providing something for everyone in grand theft auto.

Didn't ready everything here but this sounds basically what I was thinking after the trailer came out and there was conflicting thoughts on who the protagonist is. Perhaps there are multiple protagonists that support individual perspectives of a single storyline, but this time within the original game and not as part of a multi-part episode pack. I think if done properly (as if R* fails at pulling off much), GTA V could make for a very unique experience.

Here's a theory: Grand Theft Auto V is the "most boring" GTA game ever, since it's really just about 4 guys sitting in a prison cell telling their bullshit stories.

As in, the game starts in prison, with our protagonists sitting around talking. You then highlight the one you want to play as, and his story is all the stuff he did to end up in prison. Saving and loading works just like previous games, but now when you load, you can choose to continue with your current character, or pick another.